-->
@secularmerlin
See above
Theism vs. Atheism debate
Posts
Total:
540
-->
@keithprosser
Unless we can figure out What conciousness is I'm not sure how helpful/useful a conversation we can have.
-->
@Fallaneze
It is pretty clear you are not capable of having your mind changed so why waste everyone's time with this forum post?
I'll try but do argue in good faith instead of dismissing people's claims as if they have not shown you the flaws in God.
Am I wrong in saying you are committing the begging the question fallacy?
If so what evidence do you have to support your belief in God?
-->
@keithprosser
3D { XYZ } plus Time { Observed Reality } ergo moderating angle and frequency over eternally reoccurring time periods { second, month, day year etc }If consciousness is an illusion, what is it an an illusion of?
-->
@Fallaneze
First Cause:
This presupposes that nothing existed at some point. We have no evidence of this. If you're going with more probable scenaio. You should presuppose that everything always existed because that's what science tells us speaking in terms of probability. So this is not consistent with "god is more probable."
Big Bang.
So you say it's the best "explanation" I'm going to have to stop you right here. God does not explain anything, it only accounts for it. There's a difference. God is just a definition that has the power to make the big bang. That's not explaining the big bang. To explain the big bang, your insertion of god should be able to tell you exactly how the big bang happened down to the detail and should give you predictive power. God does neither of these things. So God doesn't "explain it" God "accounts" for it. Furthermore, God is not the best "account" Particles are the best "account" Because they have been proven to exist. So in terms of what's more "likely" God is not the one in this case.
I would also like to point out that we have no reason to believe that the big bang was the beginning of time. For all we know, the universe is cyclic. In fact, this is more likely. Before you even bring up heath death, I will remind you that heath death is not even remotely proven and assumes that we live in a closed universe, which we can't prove. If we live in an open universe, then a cyclic universe is possible. So this all seems much more likely than God.
Explanation:
All of the things that have "explanation" are false because you should have put "accounted for" which makes them not likely anymore.
Quantum mechanics.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that the particle is irreducibley complex so it had to be made by god? If so, that's not true and that's a very old argument that has been debunked by a lot of people smarter than me.
If you're saying we can get consciousness from particles, then I might be inclined to listen to that argument. But equating it to god in this case is the same as saying "magic"
Mental Construct.
If you're saying that what we see is an abstraction of reality, then I agree. If you're saying that the abstraction IS reality, then I disagree. Either way, how does this make god more likely? Where's the evidence of a universal mind? Maybe a collective mind. Not a universal one.
Moral Realism
Well that is a dubious thing to say. So you want to believe in God because it explains a theory you like? That's called adding evidence Post Hoc and it's fallacious. You don't find the moral system you like and then throw god on it. You find the one that works best with the actual evidence it has. God is not evidence because we don't even have proof. So you can't use god to prove moral realism. Morals are easily accounted for and explained by evolution without adding a god post hoc. So why not just go with evolution?
Math.
None of what you said is true. You're just saying "Math is weird and seems real so I'm going to say it is" That's just you coming to decisions using your feelings. If math is so mysterious and alive. Then how come you can feel it and I can't? Do I call my dreams real? No. I know they're fake. A 4 year old knows they're fake. Why don't you know they're fake?
Death.
This is categorically debunked by science, so I'll just tell you to do more research here. Near death experiences are wildly inconsistent with each other and they're already unreliable from the beginning because we're getting data out of brain that isn't working properly at the moment.
Information Richness.
Even if this was true, it wouldn't point to god. This is just you saying "The world is really complicated, so it had to be god"
Most of your arguments are argument from ignorance fallacies.
I could have thought up better reasons to believe in god than what you came up with.
I suggest you take these ideas and try to disprove them yourself before you believe them. If you're not trying to disprove your own beliefs, then you're just married to them and that's no good.
-->
@mustardness
I don't despise dictionaries. They're a good starting point. IN YOUR PERSONAL TIME. When you're in a debate, you should have your terms looked up already. If you see a term you don't recognize. Look it up. But using a dictionary as a tool to confuse people is not a noble practice.
You say I have a disposition against dictionaries. Not true. But considering you can't have a conversation without one, I could turn it on you and say you have a disposition of taking dictionaries as authorities. You see how that works?
-->
@mustardness
How about you stop hiding behind your dictionary like it's a Bible and just tell me what you believe. Or are you scared to defend your position without a bunch of equivocated words to hide behind?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I wasn't providing arguments yet. Those were just the names of the arguments. Out of curiosity did you mean to skip the "best explanation for the fine-tuned universe"?
Rather than having a shallow back and forth about each one, I'd rather start from the top.
First cause. You mentioned that we should presuppose that everything always existed. But Hawking, in his free lecture on the beginning of time, states that laws such as the conservation of mass were broken down during the big bang. The big bang was the birth of the physical universe, including time itself.
The second issue is that under naturalism, natural causes can only occur if there was implicit chance that it would. This means that given enough time, any natural cause is inevitable. Once any natural cause inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials leading up to that action and give the event a quantifiable beginning. If natural events always have quantifiable beginnings then the natural word could not have existed forever.
-->
@Fallaneze
Neither 'something from nothing' nor 'infinite regress' makes sense. I'd say the only thing we know about the origin of the universe is that we don't understand it. My guess is that we are missing some of the pieces and it is my hope that physicists will crack the problem one day, preferably before I'm dead!
-->
@keithprosser
I agree, which is why neither of those options is plausible. Something always existed but it wasn't the physical universe.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
This presupposes that nothing existed at some point.
Clarification for accuracy, 'only nothing' existed at some point in past
Metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space eternally exists and embraces//surrounds our eternally existent, occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse.
Finite = systemic and or structural integrity aka wholeness ergo completeness
Infinite = lack of integrity i.e. no system, no structure, no wholeness and no completeness
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Wow that is two places we agree{ Win/WIn }, since that is all I suggested as a good place for you to begin, with our disscussion then you went haywire --entangled mess-- on me.I don't despise dictionaries. They're a good starting point.
Please share when you actually have any rational, logical common sense that actually address my comments as stated, by adding too, or detracting from them
You have not done the latter above{ ^ } even once and that is because you have none of the latter above{ ^ } so you share none of the latter above { ^ }
-->
@mustardness
You're such a liar. You're not agreeing with me. My suggestion is to do the work at home.
You're the one who parades your dictionary into the arena likes it's The Bible.
You're words are nonsense.
adlfkjasd;lfkjsd;lfkjsadfkjsad;flkjsd
That's my impression of you.
How about you stop hiding behind your dictionary like it's a Bible and just tell me what you believe.
Dictionary is a "good starting point" and you need to begin there if and when you want too add to, or detract from, any of my comments as stated.
Ive clearly presented what I believe for many years in many forums. Your and others ego based mental blockage is the primary problem.
Or are you scared to defend your position without a bunch of equivocated words to hide behind?
Ditto my above and then;
Please share when you actually have any rational, logical common sense that actually address my comments as stated, by adding too, or detracting from them
You have not done the latter above{ ^ } even once and that is because you have none of the latter above{ ^ } so you share none of the latter above { ^ }
The illusion of consciouness appears as interfering and non-interfering sets of the following;
3D { XYZ } plus Time { Observed Reality ^v^v } ergo, moderating//modification of angle and frequency, over and eternally reoccurring time periods { second, month, day year, light year etc }.
-->
@keithprosser
Neither 'something from nothing' ...... makes sense
Correct.
Neither........ nor 'infinite regress' makes sense.
Correction, eternally reoccurring instead of infinite regress.
Eternity is to time, as,
Infinite is to space.
The occupied space Universe is finite, so it is not about an infinite occupied space.
Your regression is about eternally reoocurring time periods { periods of time } not an infinite space.
Unless you specifically reference micro-infinite space as found with one version of Fullers multiplication-by-division scenarios
and hat is a whole other issue that I have no good answers to argue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The illusion of consciousness appears as interfering and non-interfering sets of the following;
3D { XYZ } plus Time { Observed Reality ^v^v } ergo, moderating//modification of angle and frequency, over and eternally reoccurring time periods { second, month, day year, light year etc } and within a finite volume of occupied space, that, we call Universe or as Uni-V-erse.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
OMG somebodys ego { I } has gone haywire{ entangled mess }.You're not agreeing with me.
1} I was first to introduce the idea 'dictionary good begining place' for your in our disscussion, then you came back and agreed with me on that point in #287.
Please share when you actually have any rational, logical common sense that actually address my comments as stated, by adding too, or detracting from them
You have not done the latter above{ ^ } even once and that is because you have none of the latter above{ ^ } so you share none of the latter above { ^ }
Ego { I } gone haywire { * I i / i \ i * }
-->
@mustardness
Okay mouthnoiseness.
You're trying to say that you agreed with me that a dictionary is a good starting place. But you're talking about using it as a starting place in a debate and I'm talking about using at a starting point at HOME before the debate. We're not talking about the same thing and you know it and you're just trying to create false agreement to make it think I was arguing for you position all along and that's fallacious.
asd;lfkjsd;fkjsd;flkjasd
You again.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Okay mouthnoiseness.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder{ observer } and you see no beauty or truth in 99% of what Ive stated{ presented }
OMG dude, your really need to learn how to place your ego to the side.
Somebodys ego { I } has gone haywire{ entangled mess ex { * I i / i \ i * }
1} I was first to introduce the idea 'dictionary good begining place' for your in our disscussion, then you came back and agreed with me on that point in #287.
00} Please share when you actually have any rational, logical common sense that actually address my many, prior comments, in various threads, as stated { presented }, by adding too, or detracting from them
01} You have not done the latter above{ ^ } even once and that is because you have none of the latter above{ ^ } so you share none of the latter above { ^ }
-->
@mustardness
You say ego a lot.
It logically follows that you must think about ego a lot.
You must be projecting your insecurity about your own ego onto me. Or you're obsessed with the ideas of egos.
Which is it?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Which is it?
Ive specifically address your ego based mental blockages to truth many times. Truth is truth irrespective of when, where or how it is presented.
Ive addressed my ego in those regards to you specifically a couple of times and as always{ 99% }, you refuse to place your ego to the side, and address my comments as stated//presented and with any rational, logical common sense.
less truth <------W-Ralph << >> M-Tard ---> more truth
less truth <------W-Ralph divergent M-Tard ---> more truth
Sorry W-Ralph but I cant keep addressing your only your ego based problems as that is bascially all you know how to put into a message, in my regards.
00} Please share when you actually have any rational, logical common sense that actually address my many, prior comments, in various threads, as stated { presented }, by adding too, or detracting from them
01} You have not done the latter above{ ^ } even once and that is because you have none of the latter above{ ^ } so you share none of the latter above { ^ }
-->
@Fallaneze
It is natural for us to want a comprehensible explanation of the origin of the universe, but I think there isn't one. I don't mean there is no explanation, I mean that the explanation is not compatible with our assumptions about reality. Most of us don't accept something from nothing or actual infinities are possible, but I think it very likely one of our most unchallengeable axioms is wrong. The probem is which one, and what replaces it!
18 days later
-->
@Fallaneze
Consciousness is QUALITATIVE.So you do have independently verifiable observable evidence of consciousness?
Consciousness is not rigorously defined.
There is no such thing as a "conscious-o-meter".
-->
@secularmerlin
Are the movements of planets the same thing as gravity? The answer is no. Are the movements of planets observable evidence for gravity? The answer is yes.Therefore unless conciousness is an illusion your behaviors lead me to believe that you possess a conciousness similar to mine and if conciousness is an illusion you would appear to be experiencing the same illusion.
Well stated.
-->
@3RU7AL
He's using the term "observable evidence" two different ways. In one sense he means "independently verifiable perceivable" and in the second sense he considers similar behaviors between himself and others as "observable evidence" of the other person's consciousness when in fact consciousness is not independently verifiable and perceivable (at least not at this time -- although I don't think we'll ever be able to).
-->
@nagisa3
Positing the existence of anything beyond your perception is faith.
Unless it is tautological. Do you know everything? If not, then "something" "unknown" (and possibly unknowable) must "exist". This "unknown-unknowable" is the noumenon.
The idea that there is a thing behind that which we perceive is, in my opinion, ridiculous,
So you believe that there is literally "nothing" behind our perceptions? This would seem to fly in the face of observable reality.
...especially when you consider that things don't seem to have existence before perception (the so-called the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics).
The wave function =/= "nothing".
There doesn't seem to be evidence (or a way to find evidence) for a noumenon, and if you did, it would be a phenomenon because you perceived it.
The evidence is an indirect, yet undeniable tautology.
That is unfalsifiable. Sure you can say, well, things get muddled without noumenon, but that isn't a reason to have faith in it.
The way to falsify noumenon is to know everything. If you knew everything, then noumenon would disappear in a cute little puff of logic.
You could, for example, believe the world is entirely incomprehensible...No, you absolutely could not believe such a thing and still maintain the ability to feed yourself and use a computer.You could believe in it in approximation comprehensible. I believe I'm moving on a giant ball in space around the sun, that doesn't make me dizzy. I can believe something and act in a different way. I don't believe the sounds or symbols of the English meaning have inherent meaning at all, I can still use them to do what I need to do in life. Conventionally, things can be perfectly comprehensible, doesn't mean they need to be ultimately comprehensible.
We seem to agree that some things are comprehensible and some things are not (or may not necessarily be comprehensible).
This is entirely different than your proposal that "the world is ENTIRELY incomprehensible".
Why is fundamental existence indisputable? That's awfully faithful. There are literally plenty of philosophies which don't posit fundamental existence, that's not to say they're necessarily correct, but that being indisputable is a local idea.
"Nothingness" cannot possibly "exist". Therefore, "somethingness" must necessarily exist.
Even quantum physics seems to suggest Noumenon is a bad assumption.Please explain how exactly "quantum physics" "suggests" "the unknown-unknowable" is a "bad assumption"?Collapse of the wave-function suggests that there existing something objective before you measure it to be a bad assumption. Causality is preserved, but there are times when we can rationally disagree on the order in which events (phenomena) happen, what would that mean for the noumenon?
The wave function =/= "nothing".
Reply to [POST#92]
-->
@Fallaneze
The motion of planets is evidence of gravity.He's using the term "observable evidence" two different ways. In one sense he means "independently verifiable perceivable" and in the second sense he considers similar behaviors between himself and others as "observable evidence" of the other person's consciousness when in fact consciousness is not independently verifiable and perceivable (at least not at this time -- although I don't think we'll ever be able to).
The cohesiveness of the milky way galaxy is evidence of dark-matter/dark-energy.
Human expression and communication is evidence of consciousness.
-->
@nagisa3
A tautology cannot be said to "exist." It is a statement which is just saying the same thing two different ways.
In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. A simple example is "(x equals y) or (x does not equal y)" (or as a less abstract example, "The ball is green or the ball is not green"). [LINK]
When I say, it is possible that nothing exists, I am not saying that there is a substance called nothing which exists out there, I am simply saying that no---thing can be said to have the properties of existence we normally talk about.
I agree with you generally, with one exception. "Things" that must "exist" by logical necessity can also be said to "exist".
When I say I had nothing for breakfast, I am talking about a lack, not that I ate something called nothing. And your example here of a tautology if I may formulate it is like this: "I do not know everything" is equivalent to saying "There exists something I do not know."
That sounds about right.
I would respond by saying sure, depending on what you mean by "know."
Please explain how you could possibly misunderstand the concept of "knowledge".
And positing because of this statement something exists outside your perception, I disagree with.
Do you know how many people are currently riding bicycles on the planet earth? No you don't. But you can still be pretty certain the number is more than zero. Things exist outside of your perception.
My definition of perception is relatively broad, however, compared to most people's I think. The noumenon, I am not convinced by.
The only possible alternative to noumenon might be some sort of omniscient solipsism, because even traditional solipsism doesn't explain the origins or parameters of "you".
I would say, if it is there, you perceive it. And as I said before, you can observe things that are like illusions.
Even an "illusion" must have some "substance". An "illusion" cannot be "nothing".
From your perspective, you always tend to be the center of reality. But I would venture a guess and say you don't believe that.
Each observer is necessarily the center of their perceived reality.
The wave function is an abstraction, but you are right it isn't nothing. The wave function can only be created after perception, however, so I wouldn't say that is what exists. Newton's equations don't float around, they are descriptions.
The wave function is what "is" before observation. When it is observed, the wave function collapses. What we generally refer to as "reality" is collapsed wave function, not the wave function itself.
Tautology isn't evidence, it is saying something the same way twice.
Logical necessity is actually pretty strong evidence.
The way to falsify noumenon is to know everything. If you knew everything, then noumenon would disappear in a cute little puff of logic.You seem to think that "I don't know everything" is another way of saying "there exists a thing in itself that is not obtainable by the senses." I do not think this is the case.
Noumenon is comprised of at least two fundamental components. Firstly, "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and secondly, "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium).
The wave function =/= "nothing".Again, wave-function is an after-the-fact description, it does "exist" before we measure it, or rather, entangle our measurement device with the system.
When the wave function is measured, it collapses. For example, [LINK]
-->
@secularmerlin
@Fallaneze
@3RU7AL
I can't help wondering what unobservable evidence would look like...
Hypothesis: A force gravity exists.
Evidence: Observations of planetry movements are compatible with the hypothesis.
Hypothesis: People are conscious.
Evidence: Observations of people's behaviour are compatible with the hypothesis.
Seems the same to me.
Perhaps a good definition of evidence is 'anything compatible with the hypothesis'?
-->
@keithprosser
I can't help wondering what unobservable evidence would look like...Hypothesis: A force gravity exists.Evidence: Observations of planetry movements are compatible with the hypothesis.Hypothesis: People are conscious.Evidence: Observations of people's behaviour are compatible with the hypothesis.Seems the same to me.Perhaps a good definition of evidence is 'anything compatible with the hypothesis'?
There is direct evidence and indirect evidence. When direct evidence is inaccessible, indirect evidence is often considered "sufficient".
-->
@3RU7AL
If you look at a cow then the cow is made of meat, but your perception of the cow is not made of meat. What physically exists is a pattern of neural activity that encodes {cow}, ie a neural pattern containing information such as 'big', 'brown', 'has four legs and two horns'. Your brain has the as yet unexplained power (consciousness) that turns that information into 'awareness'.Even an "illusion" must have some "substance". An "illusion" cannot be "nothing".
So an illusion (or anything percept) is made of information. So is information a substance? That I suggest that is not a matter of fact but of how one chooses to define 'substance'. Information is not nothing but neither is it an ordinary, material 'substance' like meat. As long as people agree whether the word substance includes information or not either convention can be adopted.